Thinking of Buying a 22LR

[crossfire]

Personally the Ruger doesn't fit my hand nearly as well as the Browning Buck Mark. I love it, it's a tack driver.

That is one fine looking Buck Mark

[graycrait]

I fiddle around with MK series Ruger .22's quite a bit. I don't recommend spending the money on the complete Volquartsen accurizing kit. Just buy the VQ trigger and a VQ sear. If you have a MKIII you will also need a MKII hammer bushing ($6.95) to replace the space where you remove the mag disconnect. It may not be rocket science but I have enough folks ask me to replace the parts for them that for many it can be be frustrating. The first few times you detail strip a Ruger .22 MK series pistol can be a pain. MKII's are not drilled and tapped but most, but not all MKIIIs and MKIII 22/45s are and the ones that are D&T'd have rails in the box. For most folks a Millet 3MOA red dot will suffice. Both Millet and Matchdot make multi-sized red dot optics with variable dot intensity. Matchdot is sort of the gold standard but I like Millet better.

This was a nice unit.

I had to shave the front of the rail to fit on the 4" MKIII 22/45.

[I_Like_Pie]

Just for the record....Ruger did start tapping and supplying the MKII with a rail right near the middle of its run. MK II started in the early 80's and finished around 2000. Started coming with factory tap and rail for all the target models around middle 1990s.

I would look up the specific years, models, and S/N but my book is out in the car and it is late

[Guest Lester Weevils]

My stainless MKII target slabside about the year 2000 came supplied with factory scope rings in the box. The pistol was tapped for the factory scope rings, but Ruger did not include a rail in the box and I don't recall them selling one to fit. Or maybe the Ruger part was so expensive that people bought third party. There was a little mail order company that didn't seem to sell much else at that time except a rail machined with a bottom-side to snugly match the top profile of that MKII. That rail was drilled to match the ruger factory scope-ring holes.

The company was Clark Custom, Princeton LA. Dang! The company still exists and still sells that part!

At the time it seemed real expensive for a little piece of aluminum, but it works fine and remains in good shape.

The only issue I had-- Did a test fit of the rail and screws which eyeballed fine. Then did a final assembly with loctite and let it setup. Next day discovered a little bitty nub of one of the screws protruded down too far and interfered with the bolt. Had to reach up in there with a mototool grinder bit to smooth it off and allow reassembly.

edit-- I bought that MKII slabside around 2000, but haven't the foggiest idea what year it was made or how long it may have been sitting in a distributor warehouse.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest erob]

I have both Rugers and a BuckMark. If you get into a Ruger try to stay with the MKII, as several here have already posted the SS Competition Target comes from the factory drilled and tapped for a rail. It comes from the factory with scope rings, the rail has to be bought seperate and can be bought from Ruger. Mine has been flawless and will last several lifetimes. As earlier pictured the BuckMark Contour comes from the factory with a rail, if you choose a different model BuckMark you will want to buy a Weigland rail, removing the existing factory rear sight rail which is held in place by 2 screws. Then you can add any type of scope you want. The Buck Mark does weigh less than the Ruger but it is not as sturdy as the Ruger, however, as difficult as this is to admit the BuckMark trigger is better out of the box than the Ruger. With that said you can spend $68 on a "do it yourself" Volquartsen sear and Target trigger and the Ruger will be as good as it gets. I can say the Ruger feels much better in my hand than the BuckMark but that is personal preference. Both are extremely accurate but keep in mind, if you do put something along the lines of a Red Dot Scope on it, the quality of the scope can make as much of a difference as the pistol. I just purchased a High Standard Military Citation model 107, from everything I have read that and the Smith & Wesson model 41 are as good as it gets without getting into the $2000 range with something like a Hammerli 208. Not trying to promote another forum but if you want to research further go to www.rimfirecentral.com Those guys eat and breathe .22's and are super nice. You can check into many different .22 manufacturers, they have a section for each different maker of pistol. Yes you need a quality target .22, it should be a pistol in every shooters collection. As you said, it is cheap to shoot and allows the shooter to really focus on trigger pull and holding on target without the recoil issues. Plus they are FUN!! Good Luck.

Edited April 1, 2012 by erob

[gjohnsoniv]

Is there any real noticeable difference in accuracy between the shorter barrel on the 22/45 and the Hunter at say 25 yards? I really want to get one of the two and like the threaded barrel on the 22/45, but like the longer barrel on the Hunter.

[graycrait]

Something I haven't researched is the twist rate on various models. I've been reading a book that came out in '88, by Long, "The Ruger .22 Automatic Pistol." In it Long states that some models came out with 1:15 twist rates as in the Government MKII , while others like the Target had 1:14 and still others or most others 1:16 twist. I have never seen that before. I am wondering if twists rates in various models of MKIII's vary? In Skennerton's 2008 Handbook for .22 Ruger MKI, MKII and includes MKIII although not in the title, Skennerton makes no mention of the twist rates.

In any case in my feeble attempts at shooting I haven't seen much difference in accuracy that seemed to be related to barrel length other than length of sight plane. With Red Dots like Millet or Matchdot the MKIII's I have had seemed to work well regardless of length of barrel.

[gjohnsoniv]

I was just wondering. I like the longer barrel but I want to be able to put a suppressor on it. Thinking about it now though that might make the balance too far forward. Looking on Ruger's site it looks like they are all 1:16 now.

Edited April 1, 2012 by gjohnsoniv

[graycrait]

I am bound and determined to get the paperwork for a suppressor started this week as I have 6 threaded .22s and no suppressor. So looks like a trip to Guns and Leather on Tues. I also just read that all MKIIIs are now 1:16.

As far as balance with a suppressor. I shoot my friends' suppressors on my guns. My favorite suppressed pistol is the 4" S&W 422, but on a Ruger I would probably be happy with the shortest barrelled threaded 22/45 as the polymer lower shaves a number of ounces off the gun. If you run an optic on the a suppressed 22/45 the gun should balance well enough I would think.

[gjohnsoniv]

I really didn't put any thought into it before when I said that. I wish though that the 22/45 would come with adjustable sights, not fixed. Maybe that's just me. Thinking about it though, with a six inch barrel and then the can I think the longer barreled Hunter would be a bit unwieldy for my tastes. Also it just seems like it would tip forward more because of more weight being upfront unless you mounted optics. Oh well, just my take on it.

Maybe I need to get the paperwork for some class III things in before November in case Obama gets re-elected...

Edited April 1, 2012 by gjohnsoniv

[Guest erob]

Keep in mind 2 things when comparing the 22/45 and MKIII Hunter. 1) Weight - the Hunter is going to be significantly heavier since it's all steel. 2) The grip angle is very different on the 22/45 to the Hunter. I would find both pistols and hold them to see which one feels better in your hand.

I'm not a big MKIII fan just because of the Govt required changes, with that said, the Hunter is my fave of the MKIII pistols.

[Guest harryjordan]

Ruger 22/45

[gjohnsoniv]

Keep in mind 2 things when comparing the 22/45 and MKIII Hunter. 1) Weight - the Hunter is going to be significantly heavier since it's all steel. 2) The grip angle is very different on the 22/45 to the Hunter. I would find both pistols and hold them to see which one feels better in your hand.

I'm not a big MKIII fan just because of the Govt required changes, with that said, the Hunter is my fave of the MKIII pistols.

I've shot both and like both, but I wish that they could make one with features from both.

[Jonnin]

I've shot both and like both, but I wish that they could make one with features from both.

you can probably put together just about any combination of parts to get what you want if you are willing to deal with it.

[gjohnsoniv]

This is true. It's one of those things that isn't that high on my list to deal with though.

[nightrunner]

The perfect .22 imo would be a mark ii with a steel 22/45 grip angle, i cant stand the luger grip angle.

[Oh Shoot]

The perfect .22 imo would be a mark ii with a steel 22/45 grip angle ...

...that disassembled like a Beretta NEOS.

- OS

[Jonnin]

on the accuracy question...

I have shot a variety of the target 22s in 5 to 8 inches. It makes no real difference unless you are going for extra long ranges. The longer the barrel, the more velocity and the farther it goes and flatter it shoots.

Longer barrels can help the shooter (sight radius!) but a red dot removes that issue. 5 inches is plenty of target barrel, 7 is so front heavy the gun becomes more difficult to hold properly and easily. However there are lighteweight barrels out there if you wanted to spend money on that.

I would stick to a 5 inch model.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Jonnin

[Oh Shoot]

....Longer barrels can help the shooter (sight radius!) but a red dot removes that issue. ...

Only if you can hold it steady enough to maximize it.

I never thought of myself as being particularly UNsteady, till I first tried red dots (and lasers)!

- OS

Edited April 2, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest motonut]

Posted by OS:

I never thought of myself as being particularly UNsteady, till I first tried red dots (and lasers)!

Ain't that the truth!

Why isn't the "Quote" feature working?

[Capbyrd]

I was just wondering. I like the longer barrel but I want to be able to put a suppressor on it. Thinking about it now though that might make the balance too far forward. Looking on Ruger's site it looks like they are all 1:16 now.

Something else to consider. Most bulk pack ammo will remain subsonic in the factory threaded version. it will save you from having to buy subsonics. I've got a few thousand suppressed bulk pack rounds through my 22/45TB and I've only had maybe 5 go supersonic.

However, I don't mind buying subsonics and the hunter looks great. I've been thinking about getting one and sending it to one of the RFC guys to have it threaded.

[Jonnin]

quote works. Your browser choked on the script or something, try restarting it or rebooting or ccleaner, the usual sorts of things --- see if it fixes itself after prodding.

I know nothing about legal issues or even how well this works, but supposedly you can buy an ultra long barrel and drill gas exit holes in the last 2-3 inches to make a silenced, or at least very quiet, .22 pistol. Someone might know more about that?

Edited April 3, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest motonut]

quote works. Your browser choked on the script or something, try restarting it or rebooting or ccleaner, the usual sorts of things --- see if it fixes itself after prodding.

Quote is back working now and I didn't do anything on my end. Oh well......

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I know nothing about legal issues or even how well this works, but supposedly you can buy an ultra long barrel and drill gas exit holes in the last 2-3 inches to make a silenced, or at least very quiet, .22 pistol. Someone might know more about that?

Been meaning to play with a linear compensator some time. Any chance the threads on a .22 pistol might be the same as typical .223 compensators? Met a fella at PC with a linear compensator which looked like the DPMS in the second picture below. From the rear or the side, his AR was so quiet it was "in the ballpark" of a suppressor, but it directs most of the sound forward and most likely it was double-obnoxiously loud downrange. Kinda amazing how quiet it was from the side or rear.

If the objective is shooter comfort rather than "not annoying the neighbors", then a linear compensator might be "real close" to the same effect as a suppressor as far as the shooter and other folks on the firing line? If it worked so good directing the sound on that fella's AR, then maybe it would be REAL quiet on the rear and sides of a subsonic .22?

Which begs the question-- Does the ATF publish objective criteria on the legal definition of a suppressor? If a feller happened to make a conventional compensator but his acoustic design was too effective-- If it accidentally worked "too good" then guess he would be in a pickle if un-registered? Would ATF just make a wild guess whether it is a compensator or suppressor, or is there an objective testing spec that anybody can perform with a sound level meter or whatever?

http://www.slickguns...ator-12-x-28tpi

http://www.cheaperth...m/ARR561-1.html

[Capbyrd]

.22lr shares a common thread pattern with .223, .5x28. However, in some cases (Walther P22), the barrel is too small in diameter to properly thread so an adapter is required.